2 ms·
I've stopped enjoying photography some time ago, due to the sudden realization of how photoshopped photography is nowadays [1]. Although compositing is the ext
by pizza234 9y ago
I've stopped enjoying photography some time ago, due to the sudden realization of how photoshopped photography is nowadays [1].
Although compositing is the extreme case, I think most of the published photography, landscape in particular, is equally fake, in a way.
Professional phographers have a typical rationalization -
it's art, not retouching. I'll believe those are not excuses the day when I'll see tags clarifying that the subjects are digitally manipulated.
[1] I don't really know if 50 years ago photography was equally "photoshopped", in proportion, but I doubt that the tools were as powerful as they're today.
- igouy 9y agoSounds like you used to assume that photographs were something they were not? "Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop" https://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22faking+it%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifvqa-rY_ZAhUKsFQKHSpBBCMQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=%22faking%20it%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&printsec=fron...
- pizza234 9y agoOh well, I'm not assuming that they weren't (I wrote equally "photoshopped", in proportion); also, I think it's a bit more complicated than a spectrum not retouched at all/complete fake. Specifically, my suspect is that easy of retouching has a snowball effect in the culture. By lowering the barrier to retouch, there will be a competitive incentive to be more and more aggressive with the tools. However, interesting book. I'd be curious to read what it says about Ansel Adams.
- igouy 9y ago"lowering the barrier" or building awareness among the audience that a photograph may not be what it seems at first glance.